Question: After conceivably the most powerful man in the world, the president of the United States, Barack Obama, called for Israel to withdraw to pre-1967 lines on national television, I find it exceptional that the next day on national television in front of the world, the Prime Minister of Israel, Binyamin Netanyahu, sitting next to Obama, was able to say, returning back to the pre-1967 borders was a risk that Israel simply could not take. As an American Jew, how do I reconcile my support for Israel's security while also supporting our President’s vision for peace in the Middle East.

The matter abounds in mystery and uncertainty, but I’m grateful for the chance to explain at least one, but vital, aspect thereof.

We know of the biblical provision of the counting of 49 days of Sefirah, from Pesach until Shavuot, called the days of the Omer. The Bible’s narrative is unrelated to the given reason for the counting itself, but events later on in Talmudic times added new levels of history and of ascribed meaning. Primarily, the weeks’ mourning atmosphere, with accompanying prohibitions, became its proper manner of observance.

I researched and composed an extensive study several years ago. But I will leave its many concepts and attached personalities to another time, allowing myself here to address just one of the mysteries that does beg for answers.

The Talmudic narrative (Yevamot 62b) is the textual source. But its literal meaning demands the historic context. It reads: “Twelve thousand pairs of disciples of Rabbi Akiva …died at the same period … at a plague….It was said (about them): they had not respected one another.” The evident consequence here is that we find condign punishment for the misbehavior, and from here, then, yields the grave mourning that follows.

But a literal interpretation of the Talmudic text poses some logical puzzles: Could the revered Rabbi Akiva have really tolerated such misdeeds, and allowed their obviously pious disciples become capitally liable? And with thousands of them uniformly guilty? Or, rather, perhaps mutual respect had descended to that level for more just a few of them?

If we take a broader view of this Talmudic passage, with an eye towards the historical context in which it was set, perhaps another answer emerges: We are reminded that the Romans were very much in charge at the time. Simeon Bar Kochba was the brave but unsuccessful leader of the revolt against Rome on behalf of the people of Israel. Many died in battle with perhaps a brief, favorable let-up on Lag BaOmer.

The questions do abound, but this Roman context clarifies a lot. My suggestion is that that Talmudic narrative had to yield the truth to satisfy their imperious censorship, to be affected by their existing prejudice. If not the large picture – that the plague refers really to the famous battle, mentioned above -- then the smaller details may give it that sense.

A key to a welcome way of interpretation here follows: The Talmudic phrase, for example, makes use of a rare tool, the expression “l’shon saggi nahor.” This means the language of euphemism or even polite opposite. It translates, literally, to “the blind man has ‘abundant light’” to make this point.

One of the great Rabbis of our day, Rabbi Eliezer Levi (Sefer Yesodot haTefillah, page 232) is a foremost spokesman of this insight. The Romans, for their side, saw in our Talmud--and we know they were watching-- that the honorable pupils of Rabbi Akiva “lo nahagu kavod zeh la-zeh” meaning “they did not respect each other.” That’s what they were expected to say; that would keep the oppressors far from envy—or from schadenfreude. Instead, truth be told, and if they were at liberty to speak, the Jews could have said fearlessly, but felt proudly, “nahagu kavod zeh la-zeh,” “they had accorded respect for each other.”

The “l’shon saggi nahor” makes sense for a history when written in fear of the tyrant’s censorious intimidation. When one meets coercion, one must resort to disguised language, for the sake of human reality. Of course, the mourning for the Omer days would have to be attributed to other sad and unfortunate events of the time.

At least it’s good thus to exonerate Rabbi Akiva’s pupils and, maybe more important, to remove a strain on credibility on the rest of us.

THE QUESTION CONCLUDES WITH ASKING, “IS IT DISLOYAL FOR A JEW TO POINT OUT THE FAULTS OR FLAWS

OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL?”

Remember that there are existing faults or flaws in every country or state, from Israel to Germany. So there would be no need for boundaries to limit non-Israeli Jews in their opinions on Israel. We could then react to each state either with full fairness in judgment, or with an attitude of emotional quality. Since full fairness is pretty difficult to achieve, then the boundaries of opinion must be set by reasons of human psychology.

If you are left with psychology, then you’ve heard the usual response offered frequently to the question of why is there a specific

problem about this or that in your relationship. The response used to greet you was “Well,it’s all because you hate your father!” Hating or loving your forebears has a distinct impression on one’s offspring, and it leaves us resulting with deep but unconscious likes or dislikes.

An example from another side is this: In 2009, the non-Jewish scholar George Gilder published a book called “The Israel Test,” whose entire, stated conclusion is that critics of Israel are affected by none other than – envy. But this sounds a bit overstated. Or try this: Consider a letter in Commentary Magazine for January, 2011 (page 6) reminding us that Israel’s status will never improve or change, and will be an eternal menacing challenge to Israel -- whether we have a lot or a few faults -- “as long as the Arab countries base an anti-Jewish hostility of the Islamic world on their religious belief, that the existence of a Jewish state is an affront to Islam.”

We would like to find fairness or objectivity for Israel, so let us first discard subjective notions that color truth with propaganda, or with double-standards, or with unripe judgments. Give us all a “fair hearing.”

Question: Given the deceitfulness of Jacob in his dealings with Esau and Isaac, how is it that he became a patriarch and his name synonymous with Israel?
In other words, why should a person who acts in less than an exemplary manner be revered as one of the patriarchs?

One way to look at the matter of Jacob’s conduct in Genesis is this: that Providence desired the succession of Jacob, rather than Esau, in the heritage – or the designation -- of the Patriarchs Abraham and Isaac. Hence, Jacob began life by holding Esau’s very heel at the birth of the twins, giving us the name Yaakov, where ”heel” is seen in the root,akov. This destiny involved him in just two events, where the questioner suggests that Yaakov was less than honest.

The first is the acquisition of the birthright of Esau, the firstborn. The narrative tells us that Esau returned home from “out on the hunt,” exhausted and famished, and saw that Jacob was preparing a soup of lentils. Esau asked Jacob that he be given to swallow this red cooked dish. Jacob, in feeling more entitled to the birthright than Esau, saw his opportunity. “Sell me your birthright now,” said Jacob. Said Esau, “I am about to die,and what do I want with a birthright?“ So the exchange was made, after which Esau is described as “eating, drinking, getting up and walking away. And Esau disdained the birthright.” (Genesis 25:24-34).

Jacob’s evaluation of the place and function of a first-born was real to him in his Providential outlook and in Jacob’s conviction throughout. (Dr. Aaron Levine, professor of Economics at Yeshiva University, spelled out how this exchange between the brothers was not a coerced transaction and thus unfair, but fair and proper under these circumstances.) Our second event, then, was prevailed upon Jacob not from himself but from Mother Rebecca. She shared in the value and primacy of succession by Jacob, and saw that the Blessing thus belongs to this son and not the other. In this event, Jacob cooperated in bringing about this conferral of heritage, though not by initiating it.

Jacob was obedient to his mother, and the rabbinic teachers in the Midrash saw him free from slander and faithful to other good traits. He then acquired the name Israel for more than his status of Patriarch, but for his struggle to “strive with G-d and with Men and prevailed. “ (Genesis 32:29)

Question: I am a nurse working 12 hr. shifts at night. When I began my current job my hiring boss allowed me to work 8 hr. nights on Saturday night, then two twelve hour nights Sunday and Monday. So I was always able to observe Shabbat because I didn't have to work until 11pm on Saturday night. Then that manager retired. Since then the eight hour shifts were eliminated. I must be off Tues. nights to prepare for lessons on Wednesday nights as I teach Hebrew school on Wednesdays. I requested to be off Tues, Weds, Fri, Sat. I was told I could have either Fri night or Sat. night off but not both. Since I am a nurse- and sick people don't take "time off", then as another Jewish friend reassures me, am I doing "divine work?" I happen to be Reform. I chose Fridays off so I can usher in Shabbat, but have to be at work by 6 pm on Saturday. What does Judaism say about this situation?

Judaism teaches that “pikkuach nefesh,” saving a life in danger must come first, and almost everything else, such as Shabbat or kosher, must be set aside to attempt to save that life or to prevent a health hazard. This applies to the nurse, the doctor, or to any category of person who is in the circumstance of helping to prevent the hazard.

But the emergency must be there now, not just a possibility it may develop.

On the other hand, you can proceed to set aside Shabbat if the possibility is feared right now, even it has not developed yet, since the average person is not an expert diagnostician, and one should not take chances if the danger is clear enough. The doctor himself or herself is bidden to violate the Shabbat in order to travel to where the patient is in danger, and, in order not to hesitate where a need is real, the doctor may take liberties to return on Shabbat, so that he or she shall be available

to serve next time.

Your question was reported as being, “What does Judaism say about this situation?” That was easier to answer than what your manager would say about it. It’s clear that Jewish law and morality would place prevention of a threat, or of a deterioration in

health, as coming first for action by the responder, even in violation of Shabbat. But to agree on a schedule of hours set by a nurse’s manager is harder to arrange according to Halachah.

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN ANSWERS PROVIDED HEREIN ARE THOSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL JVO PANEL MEMBERS, AND DO NOT
NECESSARILY REFLECT OR REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE ORTHODOX, CONSERVATIVE OR REFORM MOVEMENTS, RESPECTIVELY.